10 Comments
User's avatar
arthur smith's avatar

i agree that AI, biotech, and energy will lead to big change in a short period of time (using historical precedence).

with great respect for your overall observations, i must say i cannot imagine any significant form of "global governance" for a long time (decades at least).

i base this opinion on these data points:

1. European nations have much in common in our eyes, yet have different languages, cultures, etc. and have a long history of conflict. without the US intervening, and without globalization, i'm skeptical about even the EU becoming a governance model (expanding beyond commerce)

2. the EU can barely keep the economic union together due to conflicting national interests (and national interests are societal interests based on belief systems and cultural preferences)

3. many cultures have a strong past-orientation and their various histories include deep rifts

4. there are at least 2 major global philosophies that conflict about what is right/wrong, good/bad

5. NATO will likely only last as long as the US is part of it - due to conflicting national interests

6. "wealthy" nations would be economically decimated by global wealth distribution

7. the autocratic and monarchical governed nations have to be democratized first... good luck

8. quality and availability of global infrastructure (roads, power, etc.) varies too much

9. religious conflict prevents cooperation between many large and powerful nations

10. the UN is a feckless, bureaucratic, corrupt entity due to many of the items listed above

11. the whole continent of Africa is a disaster examined from any viewpoint

12. most Asians still live in poverty - and lack the concept of individual rights

13. most South Americans live in poverty - and resist being governed

i can add to this list...

considering the factors above, how will AI, biotech, or new energy sources change the world enough to overcome the many rivalries and hatreds that are almost as old as recorded history? especially in 25 years? i just don't see it...

Expand full comment
Peter Leyden's avatar

I also do not think that global governance will come within 25 years, and in my 3 hour interview that formed the basis of their 15-minute documentary piece I gave a much more nuanced version of my actual position. But I had no control over the edit of that video, in fact, I only saw the finished product as you did.

I think some form of global governance will evolve over this century, and it won't be one centralized group like the current United Nations. I really don't know what form it will take but I do think that coordinating 10 billion people on this relatively small planet with the pressures of climate change, and future pandemics, etc, will take some kind of governance that crosses national borders.

This essay is a more nuanced way that I think about it: https://peterleyden.substack.com/p/ai-may-bring-civilizational-scale

Expand full comment
arthur smith's avatar

it is a reasonable observation, but much must change. AI, biotech, and energy might be the needed change agents. the projections i see predict a declining global population by 2100 (way past my time but not my children) long before approaching 10 billion.

i will re-read the essay shortly... ok, we are mostly aligned.

the US founders feared governance. they developed the US government to be weak compared to the individual liberty of "the" people. i'd want much of what they espoused before i'd accept "global governance":

1. distributed governing power across branches and levels (state/local/national)

2. hold people with governing power accountable through the vote

3. originally voting eligibility required having something to lose (equivalent to 21 acres)

nothing in the constitution addresses the ability to accumulate wealth, but since we evolved beyond agrarian societies, nobody in advanced nations want to survive by growing gardens on 21 acres. wealth accumulation is key to individual liberty in contemporary societies.

Expand full comment
FieldNotesNorth's avatar

I agree with you on depopulation. We won’t reach 10 billion. Plus, there will not be a global government. To many backstabbing politicians and govt it’s human nature. Unless of course, AI actually becomes the Terminator. There will be war before world control.

Expand full comment
Gerd Leonhard's avatar

Very optimistic but I like it

Expand full comment
arthur smith's avatar

i like the optimism, but i will never be ready for global governance replacing nation states...

Expand full comment
robpreuss's avatar

how is the current Trump/MAGA/GOP helping or hindering this compelling case? because we only see them as a destructive force at this moment...

Expand full comment
arthur smith's avatar

1/3 of americans voted for trump.

1/3 didn't bother to vote against him.

by "we" do you mean the 1/3 that voted against trump?

Expand full comment
robpreuss's avatar

: ) clearly it doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. at this point the destruction affects everyone, probably/especially the people who voted for him. unfortunately a vote for trump is as deadly as not voting for him. oops.

Expand full comment
arthur smith's avatar

hoping you'd clarify your meaning since you seemed to be speaking for everybody. the only obvious destruction is military facilities in iran.

Expand full comment